Hi folks,
I’m Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix, on February the 10th,
2012. For newcomers, look into the website, cuttingthroughthematrix.com,
and it should help you to put the pieces together, that comprise this big
picture of the New World Order as we think it’s called. It’s always, it’s
always a New World Order, because it’s always a New World, and different parts
of them too, different stages of the New World Order coming into view all the
time. Some have passed. Others have still to come, and once that’s
done, then there’s another New World Order. And of course, they’ll
declare that when they have everything signed together through the World Trade
Organization and the United Nations, when eventually, you’ll actually see an
actual building that is the New World Order, the New Global Government,
obviously. So, we’re living through a planned society, the planned stages
of this big society too, going back a hundred years or more, where they first
had to publish their goals.

And these
were begun by big international banking boys, who formed their clubs, and who
eventually took the name of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and
Council on Foreign Relations. They also have the Trilateral Commission as
well. And many, many others. But, the fact is, they plan to take
over the world’s resources and amalgamate countries together into a unified
Europe, exactly the same as Karl Marx talked about in the 1800s, a unified
Americas, and then a Far Eastern Rim eventually. The European Union would
extend way beyond Europe ultimately to encompass, they hope eventually, even
China. So, it’s quite interesting to see how they’re going at it.
They’ve already got Russia into a good part of it. And they’re just going
along at quite the speed. So, it’s all done above our heads. It’s
done supranationally, so we’ve got no say in the matter at all. The
politicians never mention any of these things when they run for election, and
of course, the public are quite content, it seems, to have the politicians just
do these things. And we’re trained of course, that it’s none of our
business really, leave it to the experts.

And all the
trouble we’re going through today is to do with the fallout, the necessary
fallout they call it of the catastrophes. You know, homelessness, losing
your homes, all this kind of thing, sharing your wealth across the world.
Obviously it means deprivation back home. Things like that. That
just has to be that way they say to bring in this world order. So, it’s a
much different society and system than the one you’re taught and trained about
at school when you get dates and battles and famous generals, and all that
nonsense. And that’s all it is. It truly is nonsense. That’s
not history. The boys who got the history went to special universities,
the Ivy League Universities, and they had access to incredible libraries, the
likes of which the red brick universities never ever had access to at all.

Anyway, all
of this stuff is explained at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. Hundreds
and hundreds of audios, for free download. And remember too, you are the
audience that bring me to you. You can help me keep just ticking along
here by buying the books and discs at cuttingthroughthematrix.com.
Remember, all those sites listed there too are the official sites. They
have transcripts for print-up as well of a lot of the talks. And go into
alanwattsentientsentinel.eu, for transcripts in other languages. To
order, from the US to Canada, you can use a personal check or an international
postal money order. Or you can send cash, and some people use PayPal as
well. Across the world, Western Union, Money Gram, and PayPal.

What I do, as I say, is chronicle the events. I give
you basically what’s coming, because I’ve read the reports, way in advance for
years, of what’s coming. They’ve actually published this whole agenda for
over a hundred years in various books. And it’s not hard to figure out
when you’ve read them all, and all the different parts they have to come into
place, fall into place, to make it all happen. And then they announce it
suddenly in the media, as though it’s just a whim of the moment sort of
thing. You realize, this is a long-term agenda, and you are living
through it. The future is planned.
So was the past for your parents, and your grandparents as well.
Back with more, after this break.

Hi folks,
I’m back, and Cutting Through the Matrix. You know, as I say, we
grow up in this system given the most basic education, if you want to call it
education at all. And it’s not left up to individual schools what to
teach, and not even up to the nation for that matter too. Everything
really, all curriculums come down ultimately from the United Nations.
Everything is standardized in this system. Sometimes they’ll tweak it a
bit here and tweak it a bit there for different countries, cultures, but
basically it’s all the same stuff we’re being taught, because we’re all prepared,
generation by generation, to get ready for a global governance system.
And everyone gets taught the same propaganda. Of course, that’s what
education really is, propaganda, indoctrination, and as Jacques Ellul says,
it’s most important to get this basic education, to allow subsequent propaganda
to take effectively on you.

Now, this
article came out the other day too, or a few days ago. It says:

The internet has become the most
significant vehicle in promoting extremism, according to a report released by the
Home Affairs Committee.

(Alan: That’s like the government of Britain, basically, the
Home Affairs Committee.)

The report says the internet has
become a "fertile breeding ground" for terror and is more involved in
radicalisation than prisons, universities or places of worship.

(A: This is all to do with censorship, of course.)

MPs spoke to radical cleric Abu
Hamza who said British foreign policy was a key factor in pushing young Muslims
to radicalisation.

(A: And it’s true, you know. The whole Middle
East and all these countries over there, they’ve never had peace for over a
hundred years. Well over a hundred years, almost 200 years by Britain,
especially, having wars with them, taking them over, running them for a while,
putting front men in, their own guys in charge, to get all the oil out.
And then overthrows come. And then the British aren’t too happy about it,
and then you have wars that go on again until they’re down on their knees once
more. And that’s what we’re seeing back and forth all the time with that
whole area. And of course you radicalize Muslims, because here’s people
from way across the sea coming over to bomb you all the time. That kind
of radicalizes those who are left, who see their own folks getting blown up.
Even the MI6 admitted that at the beginning of 9/11. They said, if we put
out all these fake extremist sites to attract Muslims into them in Britain, to
find out who might be attracted into it, and they were actually setting up
these sites, just like the CIA does, and Canada has done it too, and admitted
that they did it, then of course you’re going to radicalize certain folk who
are not too happy about it. So, anyway, it says here:)

The committee's report said internet service
providers should be more active in monitoring sites they host and that the
Government should work with them to develop a code of practice.

A nine-month inquiry found the
internet "was now one of the few unregulated spaces where radicalisation
is able to take place".

But it added that a "sense of
grievance" is key and direct personal contact with radicals a
"significant factor".

The Government's counter-terrorism
strategy should show that "the British state is not antithetical to
Islam", the committee said.

(A: Even though they’ve often said that Islam is the
problem. It says:)

Keith Vaz, its chairman, said:
"The conviction last week of four men from London and Cardiff radicalised
over the internet, for a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange and launch a
Mumbai-style atrocity on the streets of London, shows that we cannot let our
vigilance slip.

"More resources need to be
directed to these threats and to preventing radicalisation through the internet
and in private spaces. These are the fertile breeding grounds for
terrorism."

(A: I think really the fertile breeding grounds are
governments. If they stop going and blowing up other countries, nobody
would be getting radicalized. You know, it’s obvious, isn’t it?)

is an integral part of our
counter-terrorism strategy and aims to stop people from becoming terrorists or
supporting terrorism.

"Our new Prevent strategy
challenges extremist ideology, helps protect institutions from extremists, and
tackles the radicalisation of vulnerable people. Above all, it tackles the
threat from home-grown terrorism on and off line.

(A: So, they’re:)

"We are working closely with
the police and internet service providers to take internet hate off the
web."

Now, what’s hate? You can expand hate into anything
you want, and they will, of course. They will. They’re
already talking about anti-government groups, anti-government. And of
course, that would mean that if you criticize anything about government, you’re
anti-government. That’s how they did it in the Soviet Union. That’s
where the term came from, anti-government. They used that.
And that would mean that the opposition party is really anti-government,
obviously, since they’re always criticizing their policies. So, things
are going ahead the way it’s supposed to go, because, eventually, they’ve
always wanted to do this and censor the internet, and that’s what they’re
doing.

Now, again, getting back to the big foundations, that really
run the world, along with the big corporations, and the massive banking systems
that they have. They all work together, of course, and actually they all
belong to the same one group, ultimately. And it says:

Trust

(A: Trust. They call it a trust instead of a
foundation; it’s the same thing.)

calls for a new code of conduct for
journalists

A new report published today by
the Carnegie UK Trust

(A: They’ve got it in the US as well, of course.)

says tougher regulation is needed,
but it won’t be enough on its own to restore trust and strengthen the supply of
good journalism.

The report – Better Journalism in
the Digital Age – also says a new regulatory framework

(A: That’s new rules, regulations, and all the
rest.)

for the press is needed, one that
is independent of both government and the newspaper industry. The system should
be voluntary, but with very strong incentives for joining.

(A: You can interpret that whichever way you want.)

Only participating news outlets
would obtain the benefits of press accreditation and recognition,

(A: So, in other words, if they don’t think you’re
playing the game, playing ball, you know, playing ball with the boys, you see,
if you’re not playing ball with them, you won’t get your cards and all the rest
of it. And you won’t get accreditation and recognition.)

the arrangements which give
journalists privileged access and facilities at important places and events.

(A: Well, they never tell us the truth at these
events, because they’ve all sworn not to. Ha, ha, ha. Like the CFR
and the Rockefeller meetings, and the Bilderberger meetings.)

But the report stresses that
stronger or smarter regulation is only one of a number of levers needed to
secure better journalism: “The work of regulation is largely that of
eliminating various forms of bad behaviour, whereas the public interest also
requires positive actions in support of good journalism. Tougher regulation on
its own is not enough.”

Other recommendations include:

• The
maintenance or strengthening of public service broadcasting to ensure that not
all news ventures are commercially driven

(A:
Well, it’s never been that way. You’ve always had a lot of propaganda on
behalf of the government.)

• Civil
society organisations

(A: So here’s your non-governmental organizations.)

offering help to fund new initiatives to ensure
greater quality and diversity of news sources

(A: So, if you’re an accredited NGO group funded by
Rockefeller or whoever, whatever foundation, then you’re okay. But if
you’re not funded by them, and accredited by them, then you’re a no-no.)

• A renewed
emphasis in journalism education and training on professional ethics, including
a clear commitment to understanding and upholding the public interest.

(A: Meaning, you can reinterpret all of this to say
upholding the public’s dope, basically, or Soma, because we really are kept in
the dark at the bottom. We’re supposed to be in the dark.)

• Extending
the availability and take-up of high-speed broadband to enable universal access
to a wide range of digital news

(A: This is the stuff they want you to get, the mainstream.)

• Industry
regulators, universities, civil society organisations and the news media should
encourage more public debate around media ethics and behaviour.

The report author Blair Jenkins –
a former Head of News and Current Affairs at both BBC Scotland and STV, Chair
of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, and now a Carnegie Fellow –

(A: That means he’s a higher initiate now.)

says the public should have higher
expectations of journalists, and journalists should have higher expectations of
themselves:

“Journalism is based on trust and integrity and
that needs to be reflected in a new industry-wide code of conduct. It should be
inspiring and authentic for all journalists, but also sufficiently clear and
reassuring for the public who depend upon those journalists for reliable news
and information.

(A:
Do you remember when they sent all the embedded journalists over with the
army? They couldn’t, they would never dare say anything negative
whatsoever, and they didn’t. It says:)

“The independent regulatory system
proposed for the press would strike a new balance. You only get the many
benefits of being a serious news operation if you also live up to the
obligations. If you want the accreditation that gets you special access to the
big stories, you have to sign up to decent and reasonable standards.”

(A: What’s the big stories? Madonna or
something?)

The report will be forwarded as a
formal submission to The Leveson Inquiry.

(A: They always have inquiries in Britain, before they pass
all their laws. They know what they’re going to do before they have the
inquiry, but it’s old judges that have retired they pull out there for a few
months and give them a few million pounds, you know.)

Carnegie UK Trust Chief Executive,
Martyn Evans, says the future role of the media is a central part of the work
of the Trust:

So, it goes
on and on and on about how they have to, you know, regulate it and all, etc,
etc, etc. And yadda yah. And, play ball and you get your ticket. If
you don’t play ball and say the truth, then you’ll be in trouble, obviously.

Now, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is a geo-strategist in
geo-politics and who helped set off the whole Muslim Al Qaeda idea, when the
Russians invaded Afghanistan. And I’ve put the link up a few times.
You see a younger Brzezinski radicalizing them, standing in front of the guys
in Afghanistan telling them that theirs is a holy war, a holy war, it’s a cause
and they should fight the Russians. So, he plays all sides of course, because
he plays geo-politics. It’s like a chess game. You use one pawn and
then you flatten it, you know, or get rid of it all together, and get another
one in. They have no friends whatsoever, believe you me. It says,
anyway, his just published book is:

Strategic Vision: America and the
Crisis of Global Power." He spoke on Friday with Global Viewpoint Network
editor Nathan Gardels.

Nathan Gardels: The core of your
strategic vision for the future is of a “larger West” comprised of democratic
powers that accommodates China. Yet the West, starting with the U.S., is in a
period of political decay.

It says here. You wouldn’t think it with the money
we’re spending, eh? Back with more on this after this break.

Hi folks, I’m Alan Watt. We’re back Cutting
Through the Matrix. And talking about Brzezinski’s latest book, and
he’s interviewed by Nathan Gardels. And this is a PR piece, of course, to
sell the book. Anyway, it says:

As you have noted, while China
focuses on the long term and plots out its future, the U.S. in particular is
beset with a short-term mentality. In effect, we are no longer an “industrial
democracy”

(A: Well, he knew that because he was one of the
guys who helped give all the industry to China. That was part of the things
back then.)

in the strict sense, but a
“consumer democracy”

(A: How can you be a consumer democracy?)

where all the feedback signals —
the market, the media and politics — are short term and geared to immediate
gratification.

Doesn’t that give China the competitive
advantage of political capacity in the times ahead?

(A: And Brzezinski says:)

Obviously so.

(A: And then Gardels says:)

How can America’s short-term
mentality be changed? Are the West’s political institutions up to the
challenge?

(A: He says:)

Yes, if we develop a more
effective and longer-range response to the current crisis instead of simply
wallowing in the present difficulties — which is likely to further produce the
same negative effects that got us into this mess. We are so preoccupied with
the current crisis and so lacking in a longer-term perspective that we have no
strategic vision which would give us some sense of historical momentum.

Democracy is capable of responding
provided we focus on the right aims. The question today is whether democracies
can thrive with financial systems that are out of control, that are capable of
generating selfishly beneficial consequences only for the few, without any
effective framework that gives us a larger, more ambitious sense of purpose. That
is the real problem.

There is today a very dangerous
imbalance between the lack of budgetary discipline, the commitment to
austerity,

(A: See, he’s part of this whole big thing. He
helps cause the problems and then writes books about how to get out of them,
you know, which is all the way that geopoliticians always work.)

the determination to keep
inflation under control and to maintain a costly social policy on the one hand
— all, on the other hand, without any larger conception about which direction
our societies as a whole should be heading.

(A: Gardels says:)

The rest of the West is also mired
in paralysis. Europe has turned even further inward with the euro crisis as it
decides whether to go all the way back to the nation-state or forward to full
political union.

What is the solution for Europe?

(A: Brzezinski says:)

I believe that, in the end, the
resolution to today’s crisis in Europe won’t work out that badly.

The essential political leadership
in Europe — the Germans and the French mainly, along with some others — are
demonstrating a sense of responsibility for the future of Europe. They are
increasingly determined to shape a political framework which will supplant what
Europe has been lately, namely a financial union for some and a politically
loose community for all. Inevitably, a genuine political union will take shape
in stages and steps,

(A: That’s through signing more agreements and
further bringing you in.)

probably beginning through a de
facto treaty

(A: There you go.)

reached by inter-governmental
agreement in the near future.

Gardels: A two-speed Europe?

(A: So, they’re so clever. Some folk think you’re
already pulling out of it, but you’re not at all. You’re just going at a
slower, you’re in a lower gear basically. And it says, a two-speed
Europe. America is doing the same thing, by the way, with Canada.
It says:)

Brzezinski: Why not? There is nothing
wrong with a Europe that is in part and simultaneously a political and monetary
union at the core, which accepts the leading role of Brussels, surrounded by a
larger Europe that doesn’t share the single currency but does share all the
other benefits, for example the free movement of people and goods.

(A: That’s all part of this world-wide free trade
agreement.)

That is consistent with the
post-Cold War vision of an expanding Europe whole and free.

(A: Now, part of the reason, what he’s talking about
there isn’t just the WTO. That was part of it getting set up, of
course. But, at the end of World War II, because all the other countries
were so much in debt, they’d borrowed heavily from the big US banks for their
wars in WWII, they brought out the Lend-Lease Bill, basically. And what
this did was, they’d lend and lease things to other countries on certain
conditions, but they all had the same one condition for all European countries,
is that they would set up departments in all governments with the idea of
uniting Europe together, initially through a free trade, but ultimately for
total amalgamation, for those who don’t know the history of this. And it
was Eisenhower who pushed that forward. It says:)

Gardels: Japan changes prime
ministers every few months. It is coasting into a retirement trap based on the
accumulated wealth of the past and not looking forward. Is it possible to keep
such a Japan within the West, or will it drift toward the Chinese center of
gravity?

Brzezinski: I feel confident about
the authenticity of Japan’s commitment to democracy. Its political culture is
now more Western than its traditional political culture.

(A: Because they watch all American stuff, eh?)

But, of course, Japan is in the
East. A good relationship between it and China would contribute immensely to
stability in the Far East, and to a better U.S.-China relationship.

(A: What they want is for Japan and China, Australia and New
Zealand and a bunch of other countries, to unite into one bloc. In fact,
they’re pretty well there for those who don’t know that. Australia is
definitely in, and so is New Zealand. It says:)

can play an active role as
conciliator between Japan and China just as it did in Europe between France and
Germany and between Germany and Poland — but without the direct kind of
military involvement on the Asian mainland that the U.S. has had in Europe.
Perhaps the better analogy with respect to the U.S. and China is the role
Britain played in the 19th century as a stabilizer and balancer on the European
continent.

Well, you
see, in the 19th century, they called it the balance of power.
And what Britain would do, if one country was rising up and getting a bit too
big for its britches, as they say, or contesting Britain, then Britain would
finance and arm a little country round about it, who would then go to
war. Britain would back them, and then they’d defeat the bigger country.
Once they’d done that, the guys they had just helped to fight, you see, they
would then destabilize them, and bring them down too. That’s how you kept
the balance of power. The balance means that you’re always on top.
And I’ll be back with some more of this, after this break.

Hi folks,
I’m back, Cutting Through the Matrix. And I’ll put this link up
and other links too, at cuttingthroughthematrix.com at the end of the
broadcast, because you’ve got to read through this stuff. It’s kind of boring
but the fact is the guy is telling you how it’s going to be. And he’s up
there, Trilateral, CFR, geo-politician, who helps, literally, like the CIA do,
they have wars planned years ahead. And not just one war. We’ll
take this one first, and then five years later we’ll go for that one and so
on. That’s how they work it on the chessboard. So, he’s definitely
a master for that.

And this
article here is on:

Death on wheels:

(A: The Dutch now, I mentioned this a
while back, but now they’re actually doing it.)

Dutch to send mobile clinics to
euthanise people in their own homes

(A: There’s socialism for you,
eh?)

The Dutch government is
considering plans to use mobile medical teams which would administer euthanasia
to people in their homes.

The units, dubbed 'grim reapers on
wheels' by critics, will be called in to kill patients when their own GPs
refuse to administer lethal drugs.

(A: So, they come in to kill you. And you
can’t get out. You’re too bed-ridden, eh?)

The mobile teams of doctors and
nurses would be sent out from a clinic following a referral from the patient’s
doctor.

(A: That’s a hell of a power to give to quacks, you
know. A hell of a power. What was the Hippocratic Oath? Do no
harm, it says.)

The proposals were revealed by
Dutch Health Minister Edith Schippers during a debate on euthanasia in the
Dutch parliament.

In answer to questions from
Christian Union MPs she said that mobile units 'for patients who meet the
criteria for euthanasia but whose doctors are unwilling to carry it out' was
worthy of consideration.

'If the patient thinks it
desirable, the doctor can refer him or her to a mobile team or clinic,' the
minister wrote.

The mobile units are being
aggressively promoted by Dutch euthanasia campaign groups

(A: Who will all be funded by the big foundations.)

who want to expand the eligibility
criteria for euthanasia

(A: You’re a bit depressed today? Oh, here,
here’s a pill for you. You won’t have to be depressed ever again.)

and also to open facilities
specifically for euthanasia along the pattern of the Dignitas centre in
Switzerland.

(A: So, if you’ve ever seen the movie Soylent Green,
or you haven’t seen it, go and see it, because they put all this stuff out in
their movies years ago, to prepare us for all this stuff. It’s predictive
programming. So, it says:)

They claim that 80 per cent of
people with dementia or mental illnesses

(A: Or mental illnesses, right?)

were being 'missed' by the
country’s euthanasia laws.

(A: You see where it’s all going? I hope you
do. Oh, so-and-so’s got a bit of autism. This is all the stuff that
Adolph Hitler did, you know, when they wiped out pretty well everybody who was
‘unfit’ in hospitals, etc.)

They are supported by the Dutch
Medical Association which this summer issued guidance effectively saying even
people who complained of being lonely...

(A: Being lonely in this day and age, right, when
everybody is sitting in a, you know, you really need a house that’s only about
6 foot by 6 foot wide, that’s it, because all you need really is a computer
there and a chair. Everybody lives their life in a chair on the
computer. That’s it. So:)

...being lonely could qualify for
euthanasia if it constitutes 'unbearable and lasting suffering'.

And at the
next Rio Summit, they’re already having their pre-meetings they call them, all
the stuff that’s going to be discussed or just signed into law, actually.
It’s more like the latter, that’s what they always do. They’re going to,
remember I mentioned, they’re going to go for your energy units and what it
costs for this and costs for that. You have to pay it all yourself.

Britain will urge businesses and
governments to start accounting for natural capital

(A: Natural capital, right?)

as an additional way of measuring
economic activity at a U.N. sustainability summit in June, its environment
minister said on Thursday.

This could mean moving towards a
concept of GDP+, or measuring the use or loss of natural resources like water,
agriculture and forests to gauge economic activity, in addition to relying
solely on economic output.

"A snapshot of the state of
economies based on GDP (gross domestic product) is too narrow," Caroline
Spelman told reporters after a speech to businesses and non-governmental
organizations

(A: That’s all these private organizations that
speak for you, that you never, ever hear of, or don’t know they exist, but
they’ve got a bigger say than the whole voting population, as far as government
is concerned. But it’s all prepared for the UK, Rio+20 summit.)

"Green accounting would work
for all countries. We believe you can really drive significant 'greening' if
you take proper account of the value of natural capital in your government
accounts," she added.

Currently, governments compile
national accounts to track the activity of their economies and the data is used
to calculate economic indicators like GDP.

(A: There’s also another guy, actually coming out,
another politician who’s putting a bill through for personal energy
units. I told you years ago this would come down to personal energy
units, and that’s where it’s supposed to go. It doesn’t mention it in
this article of course. That’s a different one. Anyway, it says:)

If there were no pollinators -
creatures such as bees that enable flower fertilization - it would cost the UK
economy 400 million pounds ($633 million) a year to substitute them, she added.

(A: So, if you start losing bees, you’re all going
to pay for new ones getting brought in, even though they’re all dying off with
the GMO crops they’re planting, if we need them.)

The UK government is setting up a
committee that will report on the state of England's natural capital and the
UK's Office of National Statistics is trying to embed natural capital in the
country's environmental accounts by 2020, Spelman said.

So now
you’ve got an environmental account you’ve got to pay to the United Nations, of
course, where else.

I mentioned
too, that:

Shyness, grieving soon to be
classified as mental illness

(A: I read part of it before. This is an
update. It says:)

Millions of healthy people - including shy or defiant
children, grieving relatives and people with fetishes - may be wrongly labeled
mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on
Thursday.

In a damning analysis of an
upcoming revision of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM), psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health experts
said its new categories and "tick-box" diagnosis systems were at best
"silly" and at worst "worrying and dangerous."

Some diagnoses - for conditions
like "oppositional defiant disorder" and "apathy syndrome"
- risk devaluing the seriousness of mental illness and medicalising behaviors
most people would consider normal or just mildly eccentric, the experts said.

At the other end of the spectrum,
the new DSM, due out next year, could give medical diagnoses for serial rapists
and sex abusers - under labels like "paraphilic coercive disorder" -

(A: That’s what they want to call it now, paraphilic
coercive disorder. See, the neuroscientists are getting in on the job
now, you see, and they want all this stuff to get added and added and added to
it.)

and may allow offenders to escape
prison by providing what could be seen as an excuse for their behavior, they
added.

(A: And that’s true, they’ve already got murderers
off. Well, he couldn’t help it, you see, this part of his frontal lobe,
see, it’s like a psychopath, he couldn’t help killing folk.)

The DSM is published by the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) and has descriptions, symptoms and other
criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It is used internationally and is
seen as the diagnostic "bible" for mental health....

(A: ...Quacks. It says:)

More than 11,000 health
professionals have already signed a petition (at dsm5-reform.com) calling for
the development of the fifth edition of the manual to be halted and re-thought.

(A: Because it’s literally going to make pretty well
anything a mental illness. Disagreeing with government on anything.
Oh, you’ve got a mental illness. The Soviets used this. Don’t
laugh. Don’t laugh. The Soviets used all of this stuff. And you end up in a Gulag somewhere:)

...He said the new edition - known
as DSM-5 - "will pathologise a wide range of problems which should never
be thought of as mental illnesses."

"Many people who are shy,
bereaved, eccentric, or have unconventional romantic lives

(A: Like all the politicians.)

will suddenly find themselves
labeled as mentally ill," he said. "It's not humane, it's not
scientific, and it won't help decide what help a person needs."

Simon Wessely of the Institute of
Psychiatry, King's College London said a look back at history should make
health experts ask themselves: "Do we need all these labels?"

He said the 1840 Census of the
United States included just one category for mental disorder, but by 1917 the
APA was already recognizing 59. That rose to 128 in 1959, to 227 in 1980, and
again to around 350 disorders in the fastest revisions of DSM in 1994 and 2000.

(A: So, it says here:)

..."radically and recklessly
expand the boundaries of psychiatry" and result in the
"medicalisation of normality, individual difference, and
criminality."

(A; Well, you see, you got to fit in. There
can be no individual difference in this society. They want us all to be mass
minded, remember. The UN has said that the individual is the biggest
enemy to the peaceful world state. This is all Soviet stuff. They
tried all this in the Soviet Union. Thousands and millions even just
disappeared, never to be seen again, with crazy diagnoses.)

As an unintended consequence, he
said an emailed comment, many millions of people will get inappropriate
diagnoses and treatments, and already scarce funds would be wasted on giving
drugs to people who don't need them and may be harmed by them.

Remember,
big Pharma, I’m talking about psychiatric drugs, they have to be a big, big
part of this New World Order. Every top writer that gave us a hint of
what was coming, always said that Pharma would be involved to drug the
public. The whole public, all of us. So, I’ll put that link up
tonight as well.

And here’s,
talking about Loneliness too. It might get you killed. This is
Britain’s version of it.

Loneliness 'Worse Than Smoking'
Says Number 10 Adviser David Halpern

(A: Now this is about behavior modification.
They have these big teams now in government for behavior modification.
Here’s how they’re trying to con pensioners not to retire, so as that the
government can snatch your pension, and then you die, hopefully when you’re working.
This is the whole idea, getting your cash off you, without you claiming any.)

Being lonely in old age will propel you to the
grave more quickly than smoking, a senior Downing Street adviser said as part
of an effort to encourage people to retire later.

David Halpern, the director of
Number 10's Behavioural Insight Team,

(A: It’s Behavior Modification.)

said not having someone with whom
to share problems was one of the most significant lifestyle factors affecting
mortality.

Dubbed the "nudge unit",

(A: That’s like Sunstein again, the nudge
unit. They nudge you along into the way you’re supposed to think and
behave, right.)

Halpern's team was set up to
develop ways to push people gently

(A: Just like you’re getting pushed on the net with
your nudges there.)

into changing behaviour

(A: Behavior modification.)

rather than more draconian
government interventions.

(A: Like “you will slave till you drop.”)

Halpern was picked by prime
minister David Cameron as one of six experts joining him at a summit of Nordic
and Baltic states, where one topic was how to ensure more workers delayed their
retirement.

He told other leaders and experts
that a majority of the UK's over-75s considered themselves lonely "all or
most of the time".

Well, they
can always give you a pill now, you know. You’ll have vans that come
across your streets soon, if you say you’re lonely. Are you lonely,
sir? You’re number so-and-so?
Your name is so-and-so? Oh that’s right. And you know, they just
whisk you into the van and euthanize you on the spot, grab your organs and sell
them. And you think I’m kidding. You think I’m kidding, don’t you?

Now,
there’s some callers on the line. I’m going to try to fit them in here,
so, I’m going to just pull this up very quickly, and at satellite speed that
is, and see who’s there. Now, there’s Jim from New York, who I think
phoned the other day, perhaps. Are you there, Jim?

Jim: Hi
there, Alan. Thanks for taking my call. I live here in Upstate New
York, and there’s some National Guard Centers and Military Centers, where
they’ve had like 50 armored Humvees since they just built this center, and like
other military vehicles. Now, I know
there’s the militarization and everything. When do you think there’s going
to be really hardcore rioting or real martial law police state type things
going on here in the States?

Alan:
Partly, I think they’re doing it incrementally, and getting everyone used to
it. They have been for quite a few years. They can either keep doing
it this way, until you’re used to seeing them in the streets even. Or it
will come when they cause another crash, financial crash. Or when
Obamacare comes in. Now, Obamacare probably won’t come out until he’s
reelected, you know. They have him slated for a second term here.
But the stuff you read about Obamacare, it’s going to be slashing to the core,
the bone, the complete Health Care system. And he’s wanting to slash too
welfare, big time. And so, whenever the folk can’t keep up as their welfare
is cut back, as prices go up, everything is going up in the food stores.
It has been for years now, very fast, because the Federal Reserve says they’re
using a ten-year plan for inflation, gradually inflating the dollar, which
means that your purchasing power is less and less. It buys less.

So, it will
depend, if they do that in one big burst, or just spread it over a few
years. I think that’s when it will happen. Those at the bottom will
riot first, just like Britain, because your basics, just your basics to live
are getting out of your reach now. I mean, there’s people freezing in
Britain, as we speak, who are on pensions and so on, because they can’t afford
fuel. They have houses, but they can’t afford fuel. And we accept this
every year now, 25,000, 30,000, 40,000, it doesn’t matter. We’re getting
taught to accept this as normal. America still has to go through this
phase. And it’s going to get pushed through it now, yeah.

And from
Hamish and myself, from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night, and may your god or
your gods go with you.